http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/ Genetics Tue, 03 Apr 2018 05:20:42 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.27 http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12278 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:06:17 +0000 #comment-12278 Are you familiar with Don Beck and Chrisphoer Cowan’s book “Spiral Dynamics”? I would be very curious to see your take on their idea (actually, Clare Graves’ idea) of psychological and social emergent complexity.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12279 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:38:56 +0000 #comment-12279 I reserve Firefox for other purposes, but thanks for the advice.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12280 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:41:15 +0000 #comment-12280 His font’s too small. 
 
If your using Firefox, just press Ctrl+

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12281 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:06:53 +0000 #comment-12281 His font’s too small.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12282 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:52:00 +0000 #comment-12282 I dunno, I sorta think fields like anthro and econ and sociology would lose a lot if they got too hard-nosed. I even think there’s a bit of a danger in insisting that they be too hard-nosed. I’m not even sure they qualify as sciences, and maybe they’re best dealt-with as semi-sciences-at-best. When they get beaten up on and forced to behave like hard sciences they can turn into real monsters.  
 
 
literary variants should make it clear their unabashed normative foundations. cultural anthropologists who on the one hand espouse a very subjectivist viewpoint on any perspective YOU express will contrarily make strong positive assertions about the validity of THEIR perspective. tiresome.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2008/10/21/culture-cognition/#comment-12283 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:01:15 +0000 #comment-12283 That’s hard to imagine! 
 
All that said, is there anything necessarily wrong with cultural anthro being done in softer ways? I mean, there’s such a thing as good lit crit, and there’s certainly been a lot of impressionistic cultural writing around over the years that has been helpful, sharp, etc.  
 
There’s an obvious peril in this approach, which is that work will get too personal, or the political assholes will take over the field, etc. But that’s why the hard-nosed data-and-science types are also needed — to keep bringing things back to facts and reality.  
 
I dunno, I sorta think fields like anthro and econ and sociology would lose a lot if they got too hard-nosed. I even think there’s a bit of a danger in insisting that they be too hard-nosed. I’m not even sure they qualify as sciences, and maybe they’re best dealt-with as semi-sciences-at-best. When they get beaten up on and forced to behave like hard sciences they can turn into real monsters.  
 
But of course they’re real monsters of a different kind if they don’t get regular reality checks…

]]>